Trimble v. United States

• Decision Date: 15 September 1966
• Docket Number: No. 19942.,19942.
• Citation: 369 F.2d 950,125 US App. DC 173
• Parties: Eddie TRIMBLE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

125 US App. DC 173, 369 F.2d 950 (1966)

Eddie TRIMBLE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 19942.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued July 21, 1966.

Decided September 15, 1966.

Mr. Robert P. Stranahan, Jr., Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant Mr. David L. Chambers, III, also entered an appearance for appellant.

Mr. James A. Strazzella, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and David N. Ellenhorn, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and FAHY and McGOWAN, Circuit Judges.

FAHY, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, tried with Tommie A. Johnson, whose appeal in Johnson v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 369 F.2d 949, is also decided this day, was convicted of robbery in violation of D.C. Code § 22-2901 (1961 ed.).

The evidence was conflicting and confusing. Indeed, appellant's characterization of events as in some respect "bizarre" may be accepted as accurate. Nevertheless, we must disagree with appellant's position that his motion for acquittal at the conclusion of the prosecution's case should have been granted. It was not error for the trial court to submit the conflicting evidence to the jury. More than ordinarily, the impression made upon those who saw and heard the witnesses at the trial is important in this case, lending support to the refusal of the trial court to take the case from the jury.

The principal additional contention is that the admission in evidence at the joint trial of a statement said to have been made by Johnson shortly after his arrest was prejudicial error. The statement was testified to by Officer Newville, who said he heard Johnson make the statement to Officer Daly. Its importance grows out of the factual issue whether the complaining witness, allegedly robbed of some $215.00, actually had this money. None was found, notwithstanding appellants were arrested just after the alleged robbery and in its vicinity. There was evidence of a scuffle during which the robbery was committed, and Officer Newville testified that he heard Johnson say to Officer Daly that he had seen the money fall to the ground.

The objection is that the statement was the fruit of Johnson's arrest, which is claimed to have been unlawful because without probable cause. In answer the government contends that Trimble has no standing to complain that Johnson's arrest was illegal, and, also, that the objection to the evidence at trial was not on this ground. These answers we lay aside, for we are satisfied from our review of the record that the arrest of Johnson was lawful. His arrest occurred during his pursuit by the complaining witness, who shouted to an officer in the vicinity that the two men he was pursuing, who turned out to be Trimble and Johnson, had robbed him. This officer enlisted the help of another. This other, advised of the alleged robbery, covered an exit from an alley into which the two men had run. Johnson tried to gain the exit and was prevented from doing so by this officer who arrested him. The factual situation thus disclosed gave probable cause to the arresting officer to believe a felony had been committed and that the two men being pursued had committed it.

Appellant took the stand in his own defense. On cross-examination by the prosecution it was adduced that he had been convicted of burglary in 1954 and of petit larceny in 1964. It is...